Prop 106 - Protection, or cost?

Prop 106 - Protection, or cost?

Randy Metcalf/The Explorer, Dr. Elizabeth Vliet talks to about 30 attendees at a Pima County Tea Party Patriots event held at the in Oro Valley Town Hall last week. Vliet warned the group of the future troubles she foresees with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, better known by the pejorative Obamacare.

Supporters of Proposition 106 say the law isn't simply a
response to federal healthcare reform President Obama signed
earlier this year.

"The genesis of this is not some big anti-Obama effort," said
Dr. Eric Novack, the Phoenix orthopedic surgeon behind the November
ballot initiative.

In fact, Novack said, he's been working on similar initiatives
since 2006, long before anyone outside of Chicago even heard of
Barack Obama.

The proposition, on Arizona ballots in November, would enshrine
in the state constitution the right to pay out-of-pocket for
medical services. The law also would ensure Arizonans the right to
not purchase health insurance and not be compelled by law to do
so.

"It's critically important," Novack said. "If a healthcare
service is legal, nobody, not the government or private company
bureaucrats, can ever be able to tell you that you can't have
access to healthcare services."

The doctor said he wants healthcare decisions to remain in the
hands of patients and doctors, not in the clutches of
regulators.

A similar reform effort failed by less than 10,000 votes in
2008. Novack said he and his supporters have learned since then.
Back then, the proposal was short and vague, a few scant sentences.
Although still short by ballot measure standards at about one page,
this time around Proposition 106 has more detail.

"We took the criticisms of our opponents to heart," Novack
said.

While Novack says the proposal isn't a reaction to national
healthcare reforms, many supporters see it as exactly that.

"This is your first stance — your first line of defense — that
the federal government cannot force you to buy any healthcare
insurance," Dr. Elizabeth Vliet told about 30 attendees at a Pima
County Tea Party Patriots event in Oro Valley last week.

Vliet, a Tucson-based women's health specialist, warned
attendees of the future troubles she foresees with the
implementation of the Affordable Care Act, better known by the
pejorative Obamacare.

Sharing tales about wait lists and rationed medical care in the
United Kingdom's National Health Service and its Canadian
equivalent, Vliet said healthcare reforms passed in the U.S. would
put this country in a similar position.

"When the government pays, they get to decide what you get,
that's the dilemma," Vliet said.

In addition to concerns that government actuaries would
determine what care is appropriate for patients based on age and
risk factors and the fear of forced participation, Vliet said the
government would interfere with patient-doctor relationships.

"That's why I have said that this is a massive assault on your
privacy and liberty," she said. "I think we're headed to the
medical gulag."

Proponents of the ballot measure want to use it as a bulwark
against what they say will be an onslaught of federal regulations,
in particular the mandate that all Americans purchase healthcare
insurance either through their employers or in the marketplace.
National reforms, which depend upon nationwide participation,
impose fines on individuals who do not purchase healthcare
insurance.

Opponents of the proposition insist the constitutional change
would do little for Arizonans beside rack up legal costs.

"The drafters of Proposition 106 have fundamental
misunderstanding of how federal and state laws work," said Arizona
House Democrat Kyrsten Sinema.

The Phoenix-area legislator said the initiative would blatantly
conflict with the supremacy clause of the Constitution, which holds
that federal laws trump conflicting state laws.

"If passed, it would lead to instantaneous lawsuits," Sinema
said, adding the effort amounts to a "costly waste of time."

She points out that two lawsuits emanating from the state
already have been filed challenging the national healthcare
reforms.

Sinema suggested that better efforts could be made at lobbying
federal lawmakers to improve the law.

"What they should be doing is working for ways to implement the
law to fit Arizonans' need," she said.

In written commentary, Sinema has said Prop 106 would perpetuate
a system where insurance companies can cast out people who get
sick, or preclude others from coverage who have pre-existing
conditions.

But Novack disagrees.

"It's so patently untrue," he said. "All we're saying is you
can't be forced to participate if you don't want to."

Novack points out language in the proposition that says it would
not affect any law on books as of Jan. 1, 2009. The proposal also
would not affect any healthcare services currently allowed under
state law.

Something both sides agree on, however, is the anticipated
response from the federal government.

"Clearly, this will precipitate a federal court battle that
probably will end up in the Supreme Court," Novack said.

Unlike Sinema, however, Novack seems confident in the chance the
law would be upheld. He said the courts have no precedence to fall
back on because the national government never before has sought to
invalidate a freedom enshrined in a state constitution.